Cele|bitchy

Zac Efron & Vanessa Hudgens are back together, seen publicly hooking up
Lindsay Lohan has a “sober” live-in girlfriend now, apparently
Kardashian sisters sued for $75 million over Kardashian Kredit Kard
Natalie Portman’s maternity fashion in Palm Springs: tragic, hideous, or meh?
‘The Kennedys’ miniseries cancelled, is Katie Holmes’ robotic acting to blame?

Zac Efron & Vanessa Hudgens are back together, seen publicly hooking up

Posted: 09 Jan 2011 08:52 AM PST

Several days ago, one of our photo agencies had photos of Zac Efron getting out of his car in front of Vanessa Hudgens' house. They made a big deal about Zac visiting her or spending time with her just weeks after the two split. I didn't do a story about it because A) Who really cares, really? And B) Exes don't have to hate each other after they split up, and Zac and Vanessa seem like the kind of kids who would remain friends anyway. However, now the whole thing looks official - Zac and Vanessa are back together. Either that, or they're just enjoying some "breakup freebie sex".

Could Zac Efron and Vanessa Hudgens be back on? The couple of nearly five years — who parted ways in early December — came together Friday for an outing at Los Angeles nightclub Eden.

And their reunion seemed to go off without a hitch. Stopping by the hotspot’s opening bash, Efron, 23, and Hudgens, 21, kissed and danced the night away with pals, including actress Brittany Snow.

“The two showed up around 10:45 p.m. through the back entrance with a group of friends and were holding hands at different points throughout the night,” a source tells UsMagazine.com. But the High School Musical costars were careful to keep a lid on their PDA.

At one point in the evening, when Efron leaned in to kiss Hudgens, the actress pushed him away after spotting a clubgoer who tried to snap a cellphone photo.

“They were kissing on the lips and seemed to be enjoying their night,” says the source. Adds another eyewitness: “They seem to be back together.”

The pair’s display of affection comes mere weeks after their mutual split was announced.

“There’s no drama. No one cheated. They just grew up,” an insider told Us at the time of the breakup.

[From Us Weekly]

So, they're back together. My theory: last month, Zac had a moment of "The grass is always greener" so he dumped Vanessa and decided to see what his options were for a potential girlfriend upgrade. Then he encountered Rumer Willis during a New Year's holiday. Then he went running back to Vanessa. Just my theory!

Photos courtesy of WENN.

Lindsay Lohan has a “sober” live-in girlfriend now, apparently

Posted: 09 Jan 2011 08:15 AM PST

These are photos of Lindsay Lohan out and about in Los Feliz on Friday. Lindsay's full-on crack hustle has already commenced, as we already know, and Lindsay is showing off one of her big hustles in these photos - the necklace. It was given (FOR FREE) to her Pascal Mouawad, a jeweler that Lindsay has crack hustled from before. The heart-shaped diamond pendant is 10.10 carats, and worth approximately $25,000. That's not all! Lindsay is also back to driving - and I'm being completely and totally serious, LA residents: watch your asses. This crackhead will really mess your junk up. Don't drive unless necessary, and watch out for bleached blonde crackheads driving Range Rovers, because that is Lindsay's new ride. It was "lent" to her by Germanindependent.org.

More crack hustling… according to TMZ, Lindsay isn't going to be living alone in her rented Venice Beach house. She's got herself a "roommate". The roommate is a girl she met in rehab, and the girl will be living with Lindsay rent-free. According to sources, the girl has been "sober" longer than Lindsay, and this is Lindsay's attempt to surround herself with sober people. Two thoughts: first, I'll bet they have a blast when they drink together and secondly, I bet Lindsay and this girl are in some kind of sexual relationship. If it is sexual, I doubt it's true love in Lindsay's case. This girl is likely just someone Lindsay wants to flaunt in front of her next-door neighbor, Samantha Ronson.

Speaking of which, my last story. First Lindsay claimed she "didn't know" she was moving in right next door to her ex-girlfriend, the woman that Lindsay has been violently obsessed with for years, the woman that Lindsay has been crack stalking for years. Then, Lindsay claimed (through sources) that if Samantha wanted it, Lindsay would move out. And then Lindsay claimed… wait for it… that she would build a privacy fence around her property so Samantha couldn't spy on HER. Well, E! News got Lindsay to go on the record about all of the Sam Ronson stuff, and here's what E! News reported:

Of all the beaches in all the bohemian ‘hoods in the world, she had to move there. Lindsay Lohan is smacking down various tabloid reports that are suggesting the fresh out of rehab starlet might vacate her new Venice, Calif. rental home because it just so happens to be located literally next door to her ex-girlfriend, Samantha Ronson’s place.

Whoops!

When quizzed by E! News about whether she had any intention of moving, Lohan replied with an emphatic “No,” and then laughed off the question.

No word what her former gal pal thinks about that.

[From E! News]

See? It's all about Samantha. Lindsay has a cracked-out plan to make Samantha love her, and it involves moving in next door, flaunting a fake girlfriend to make Samantha jealous, then something with duct tape, several knives, a ransom note, a mountain of cocaine and a cracked-out Thelma & Louise-style drive to Mexico. LINDSAY HAS A PLAN.

Photos courtesy of Fame.

Kardashian sisters sued for $75 million over Kardashian Kredit Kard

Posted: 09 Jan 2011 07:40 AM PST

A few months ago, Kim, Khloe and Kourtney Kardashian attended the launch of their new credit card (Mastercard) for the whooping sum of $75,000 - just for one appearance of less than an hour. Shortly after the Kardashian credit card launched, it came under wide criticism, not just for the general vapidity of the idea of "The Kardashian credit card" but for the enormous fees, charges, etc, associated with the card. Shortly after that, the Kardashians pulled their support/endorsement of the card, citing "ethical" reasons. Because when you think of "Kardashian" you think of "ethics". Anyway, now the Kardashians are being sued for this whole mess. The lawsuit? It's for $75 million. Katastrophe!

The Kardashians have maxed out their good will. More than a month after pulling out of a debit card venture that had attracted nothing but negative attention, the company that licensed Kim, Kourtney and Khloé’s images has sued the sisters, mom Kris Jenner and their company Dash Dolls for $75 million, claiming they breached their contract by abruptly terminating the deal.

Revenue Resource Group’s complaint, filed Thursday in Fresno, Calif. and obtained by E! News, states that the Kardashians had a two-year contract and that RRG has been weathering a bad PR storm since the E! stars pulled out. And why did they do that again?

Upon its launch in November, the Kardashian Prepaid MasterCard was immediately criticized for harboring hefty hidden fees to activate, replace, etc. Consumers Union, which publishes Consumer Reports, dissed the card, and the Connecticut Attorney General’s Office demanded further disclosure from card issuer University National Bank, accusing the Kardashians of “marketing a dangerous financial fantasty.”

Not wanting to be linked to the alleged shadiness any further, the Kardashians’ attorney sent a notice of termination letter to RRG on Nov. 29. Consumer Union issued a statement applauding the move. And it seemed as if the controversy had blown over…But not everyone was applauding.

“The company waited a month to file hoping this would work out. They didn’t want to sue,” RRG head attorney Scott Rudd tells E! News.

RRG “spent a great deal of time and effort securing the rights to use the Kardashian card,” Rudd says. “RRG is an independent sale organization, which gives it the right to market pre-paid debit card.” The Kardashians walking away has “effectively put this company out of business.”

As for the allegedly prohibitively high fees, Rudd says that the card fees “were in line with other debit cards.”

Team Kardashian is not commenting on the lawsuit at this time. A case management hearing has been called for May 2.

[From E! News]

Ugh, so dumb. It was dumb to agree to this endorsement for a credit card, it was dumb to promote the thing the way they did (like it was a club opening), and it was dumb to pull their endorsement the way they did, which likely was in violation of some sort of signed contract. Now, do I think $75 million sounds reasonable? Not really. It looks more like the family of fleecers is becoming the fleeced.

Photos courtesy of WENN & Fame.

Natalie Portman’s maternity fashion in Palm Springs: tragic, hideous, or meh?

Posted: 09 Jan 2011 07:08 AM PST

Natalie Portman promoted Black Swan at the Palm Springs International Film Festival this weekend - these are photos from the photo call on Saturday. I think Natalie got the memo about her bitchface, because she was really exerting the effort to smile for the cameras. Natalie, we understood about the bitchface retroactively, because of your pregnancy. We get that you were uncomfortable. And many of us even liked your bitchface!

Anyway, Natalie showed off her bump in this absolutely hideous maternity dress. I get that she's probably trying to look a bit matronly and mature, just to be classy and not have it "all hanging out" while pregnant, but still. There is no reason for such a pretty girl to wear this budget-looking disaster. If the white piping on the hem and the white gauze with the black bodice weren't tacky enough, the designer went and added GOLD accents on the collar and cuffs. Absolutely and unconditionally tragic.

At the festival, Natalie took home the "Achievement Actress" award and she also presented Javier Bardem with the "International Star Award". When asked about impending motherhood, Natalie said: “I have no idea what it is going to be like so I’ll feel it out.”

Last thing… she was wearing her engagement ring, and I was trying to crop a photo to get a good angle on it. Here's the best that I got, and if you want to see a better photo of the ring, go here to Us Weekly:

Photos courtesy of WENN.

‘The Kennedys’ miniseries cancelled, is Katie Holmes’ robotic acting to blame?

Posted: 09 Jan 2011 06:44 AM PST

In nearly every interview over the past six months, Katie Holmes has been talking up her role as Jackie Kennedy in The History Channel miniseries The Kennedys. It was going to be The History Channel's first big miniseries project, and they spent a lot of money on the production, and they really got some good cast members - Greg Kinnear as Jack, Barry Pepper as Bobby, Tom Wilkinson as Joe Sr. Anyway, the whole thing has been cancelled by The History Channel. It's been filmed, but THC just announced on Friday that it will not air… on their channel. There is a possibility that they will end up selling the miniseries to another channel.

Which brings me to a question… can we blame Katie Holmes for this? The talking out of the side of her mouth is so not Jackie. Neither is Katie's general Joey Potter acting style. BUT… I just watched the trailer for the miniseries, and while Katie doesn't really look good, she doesn't look devastatingly bad either. Of course, it also seems like whoever cut the trailer was trying to avoid showing many scenes where Katie had to "act". Also, what's with the funky accent work all around?

Here's more about the cancellation:

Ambitious miniseries was set to air this spring; stars Greg Kinnear and Katie Holmes, and producer Joel Surnow were told today of cancellation. In a surprise move, A&E Television Networks has canceled plans to broadcast The Kennedys, the ambitious and much-anticipated miniseries about the American political family that was set to air this spring on the History channel.

"Upon completion of the production of The Kennedys, History has decided not to air the 8-part miniseries on the network," a rep for the network tells The Hollywood Reporter in a statement. "While the film is produced and acted with the highest quality, after viewing the final product in its totality, we have concluded this dramatic interpretation is not a fit for the History brand."

The multi-million dollar project—History and Lifetime president and general manager Nancy Dubuc’s first scripted miniseries at the network and its most expensive program ever—has been embroiled in controversy since it was announced in December 2009. Developed by Joel Surnow, the conservative co-creator of 24, along with production companies Asylum Entertainment and Muse Entertainment and writer Stephen Kronish, the project drew fire from the political left and some Kennedy historians. Even before cameras rolled, a front-page New York Times story last February included a sharp attack from former John F. Kennedy adviser Theodore Sorensen, who called an early version of the script "vindictive" and "malicious."

History and parent A&E said at the time that the script had been revised and that the final version had been vetted by experts. Indeed, the script used in production had passed muster with History historians for accuracy. Despite the controversy, History was able to recruit a big-ticket cast to the project, announcing in April that Greg Kinnear (John F. Kennedy), Katie Holmes (Jackie Kennedy), Barry Pepper (Robert F. Kennedy) and Tom Wilkinson (Joe Kennedy) would co-star. The actors and CAA, which reps both Kinnear and Holmes, were told this afternoon of the cancellation. Surnow also was told today.

No advertisers had registered complaints or concerns with the miniseries, confirms an A&E spokesperson, but the content was not considered historically accurate enough for the network's rigorous standards. So an air date, which had not been announced but was planned for spring, was scrapped.

"We recognize historical fiction is an important medium for storytelling and commend all the hard work and passion that has gone into the making of the series, but ultimately deem this as the right programming decision for our network," a rep tells THR in the statement.

The miniseries is still scheduled to air in Canada on March 6, and will still be broadcast internationally. But the U.S. cancellation no doubt is a disappointment in an otherwise blockbuster era for AETN president and CEO Abbe Raven and Dubuc, both of whom championed the project. AETN, owned by a consortium comprised of Hearst, Disney-ABC Television Group and NBC Universal, enjoyed its most-watched year ever in 2010, with its six Nielsen-rated networks posting combined year-over-year viewership growth in each quarter. In addition, History is now a Top 5 cable network in all demos, fueled by hit original series such as Pawn Stars and Ice Road Truckers.

The Kennedys cancellation somewhat mirrors the fate of The Reagans, a miniseries that was to air on CBS in 2003 but was scrapped when advertisers threatened to boycott after conservatives raised concerns about depictions of former president Ronald Reagan being insensitive to AIDS victims. The Reagans later aired on Showtime.

THR has learned that producers of The Kennedys might make a similar move to bring the miniseries to a pay cable channel. UPDATE: A rep for Showtime says nobody at the network has yet seen The Kennedys. In addition, producers Asylum and Muse have issued a statement: “Although we regret this does not fit into the History Channel’s plans, we are confident that television viewers in the United States will join viewers from around the world in having an opportunity to watch this series in the near future.”

[From The Hollywood Reporter]

I wonder how much money this miniseries is going to end up losing in the long run? Do you think they're just going to hope they end up breaking even? The History Channel spent big money to make this, and something must really suck if they're pulling it.

Photos courtesy of WENN. Poster courtesy of Dlisted.

Sunday, January 9, 2011

Cele|bitchy

Cele|bitchy

No comments:

Post a Comment